Carter v. Kretschmer
| Decision Date | 05 May 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 49246,49246 |
| Citation | 2 Kan.App.2d 271,577 P.2d 1211 |
| Parties | Henry CARTER, Appellant, v. Robert E. KRETSCHMER, Appellee. |
| Court | Kansas Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
1. Process may be served upon a nonresident motorist either by serving the secretary of state as agent of the absent motorist (K.S.A. 8-401 and 8-402) or by timely utilizing the long arm statute (K.S.A. 60-308(b )(2)).
2. In an action arising from an automobile accident in which the defendant subsequently left this state, it is held: Where substituted service was available, the defendant was not beyond the reach of process from our courts; therefore, the tolling provisions of K.S.A. 60-517 did not operate to suspend the time for filing a new action under K.S.A. 60-518. Accordingly, it was proper for the trial court to dismiss the plaintiff's action on the ground it was barred by the statute of limitations.
H. George Lafferty, Jr. of Lafferty, Horowitz & Schurin, P. C., Kansas City, Mo. and Jerald R. Long of Long & Giffen, Mission, for appellant.
Jerome V. Bales and James O. Schwinn of Wallace, Saunders, Austin, Brown & Enochs, Overland Park, for appellee.
Before PARKS, P. J., and ABBOTT and MEYER, JJ.
This action arises from an auto accident in Wyandotte County, Kansas, involving the plaintiff Henry Carter and the defendant Robert C. Kretschmer. The accident occurred on March 8, 1974. Plaintiff filed suit on April 4, 1975. Service was obtained on April 5, 1975, but the action was later dismissed on May 14, 1976, for want of prosecution.
Pursuant to K.S.A. 60-518, plaintiff filed a new action on August 30, 1976. The sheriff of Wyandotte County filed his return of service on September 2, 1976, which indicated that the defendant had moved from the Kansas address where he previously had been served on April 5, 1975.
Forty days after the petition and summons were returned unserved, plaintiff mailed a letter to the defendant's last known address. His letter was returned showing a forwarding address in Knox County, Tennessee. An alias summons was issued to the sheriff of that county on October 13, 1976, but service was not finally effected until December 9, 1976.
Defendant subsequently moved to dismiss the second action on the ground that it was filed out of time. The trial court sustained his motion on May 10, 1977, and plaintiff appeals.
The sole issue is whether as a matter of law plaintiff's second action was barred by the statute of limitations.
Plaintiff makes no claim that the defendant absconded or concealed himself in order to avoid service of process, but argues that when defendant departed from the state before the filing of the second petition on August 30, 1976, the statute was tolled. Thus, the time of his absence should not be counted as part of the period of limitation. As authority for his position, plaintiff relies on K.S.A. 60-517, which reads in pertinent part:
"(A)nd if after the cause of action accrues he or she depart from the state . . . the time of the absence . . . shall not be computed as any part of the period within which the action must be brought. . . . "
Resolution of the issue raised requires consideration of our statutes relating to service of process upon nonresident motorists. K.S.A. 8-401 and 8-402 designate the secretary of state as the agent of nonresident motorists for the purpose of receiving process arising out of accidents occurring in this state. Not only did defendant have an agent within the state upon whom process could have been served but he himself could have been served personally under the long arm statute. See ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bray v. Bayles
...brief periods before suit was filed. This Court recently had occasion to examine the meaning of K.S.A. 60-517 in Carter v. Kretschmer, 2 Kan.App.2d 271, 272, 577 P.2d 1211, rev. denied 225 Kan. 843 (1978). In that case, this Court ruled that absence from the state as contemplated by K.S.A. ......
-
89 Hawai'i 1, Shin v. McLaughlin
...This interpretation is also consistent with courts in other jurisdictions construing similar statutes. See Carter v. Kretschmer, 2 Kan.App.2d 271, 577 P.2d 1211 (Kan.Ct.App.1978); Benally v. Pigman, 78 N.M. 189, 429 P.2d 648 (N.M.1967); Jarchow v. Eder, 433 P.2d 942 (Okla.1967); McCullough ......
-
Gideon v. Gates
...the exercise of due diligence should have been known to plaintiff." The same definition was adopted by this court in Carter v. Kretschmer, 2 Kan.App.2d 271, 577 P.2d 1211, rev. denied 225 Kan. 843 (1978), and was cited with approval by our Supreme Court in In re Estate of Barnes, 212 Kan. 5......
-
Williams v. Malone
...905 (Wyo.1976), in which the cases are collected. Typical cases are Wilson v. Kanter, 328 So.2d 458 (Fla.App.1976); Carter v. Kretschmer, 2 Kan.App. 271, 577 P.2d 1211 (1978); Bolduc v. Richards, 101 N.H. 303, 142 A.2d 156 (1958); and Benally v. Pigman, 78 N.M. 189, 429 P.2d 648 (1967). The......
-
Walking the Legal Tightrope: Serving Timely Process When Filing State Claims in Federal Court
...Slayden v. Sixta, 813 P.2d 393, 396-97 (Kan. Ct. App. 1991), rev'd on other grounds, 825 P.2d 119 (Kan. 1992); Carter v. Kretschmer, 577 P.2d 1211, 1212 (Kan. Ct. App. 1978). 100. See e.g., Johnson, 655 P.2d at 477. The affirmative act requirement is a fact-based inquiry. Morris, 10 P.3d at......